State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
.The Branch Manager,State Bank Of ... vs Vallu Sowjanya, W/O.V.O.Rajaveer, ... on 25 June, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD F.A.No.473/2012 against C.C.No.10/2011, Dist.Forum, Rangareddy Dist. . Between: 1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chandrayanagutta Branch, 3026, P.O.Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad 500 058. Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Cell, Patny Centre, Zonal Office, Secunderabad. Appellants/ Opp.parties And Vallu Sowjanya, W/o.V.O.Rajaveer, House wife, aged about 28 years, R/o.Plot No.198, Triveni Nagar Colony, Near : Balapur X Roads, Hyderabad 500 059. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. M.Narender Reddy Counsel for the respondent : M/s.V.O.Rajaveer QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member *** This appeal is directed against the order dt.15.5.2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy, made in C.C.No.10/2011 which is filed by the respondent/complainant seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest at 2% p.m. from the date of the filing of the complaint till the date of full and final payment with costs, to the complainant .
The case of the respondent/complainant as per the complaint in brief is as follows:
The complainant and her husband approached opposite party no.1 on 26.5.2006 for sanction of housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and the complainant deposited original deeds at opposite party no.2 vide
1.
Agreement of sale dt.9.5.2006,
2. Registered sale deed bearing document no.3086/99 dt.17.5.1999,
3. Regd.
sale deed bearing document no.8561/94 dt. 21.7.94,
4. N.O.C. from LIC Housing Finance LA 23367 dt.4.5.2006,
5. Building Construction Permission dt.4.11.97,
6. E.C.Certificate no.4959/97 dt.22.7.1997,
7. E.C.Certificate no.11883(8650/06) dt.5.6.2006,
8. Registered sale deed bearing document no.12398/06, Dt.14.6.2006.
The opposite party no.2 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- which has to be repaid in 240 EMIs of Rs.3,320/-. The complainant never failed to maintain the balance in her account and the opp.parties 1 and 2 failed to recover the loan from her account, though there is sufficient balance. The opp.parties have not issued default notice or statement of account or changes in the interest rates from time to time. The opposite party no.2 issued notice on 1.2.2008 for increased rate of interest at 11.75% p.a. from previous rate of interest at 9.75% p.a. w.e.f. September,2007. The opposite party no.2 also issued notice informing that total amount payable is Rs.4,55,874/-
along with penal interest.
It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant approached both the opposite parties for the purpose of pre-closure of the housing loan account and the opp.parties have not given any benefit or not reduced any interest or penal interest on single down payment. The complainant was also shocked when it was shown that she was due a sum of Rs.5,14,720/-. Both the opposite parties on 01.01.2010, demanded the complainant to pay Rs.5,25,360/- for total closure and she had paid the same on the same date i.e. 01.01.2010.
After closure of the account, the complainant requested the opposite parties to issue No Objection Certificate and also return the original documents deposited with them. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite parties have not returned the original certificates, nor did they give No Due Certificate. On perusal of account, it was found that the opp.parties collected an excess amount of Rs.10,640/-. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice which was received by the opposite parties. But the opp.parties neither returned the original documents nor returned the excess amount collected by them. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party no.2 filed counter/written version and opposite party no.1 filed a memo adopting the same. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant availed house building loan, but contended that the complainant failed to deposit the original title deeds, though she promised to deposit the title deeds. Believing her words, they have sanctioned the loan and disbursed the same. Opposite party no.2 which is the centralized processing centre of SBI has processed and sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 12.06.2006. On the same day, it has obtained necessary loan documents, from the complainant and her husband. The complainant has executed an agreement to mortgage, on the same day and has undertaken to deposit the originals of the title deeds, within 14 days, with the bank. Basing on the assurances, given by the complainant and her husband, they have disbursed the loan and issued the cheque in the name of K.Raghavulu on 12.06.2006 itself even without, receiving the original title deeds. The said cheque was encashed by Raghavulu, who is the vendor of the complainant on 14.6.2006.
The opp.parties further contended that normally, the Bank releases the loan after deposit of the original title deeds, but in this case, the loan was released without receiving the original title deeds by bonafidely believing the versions of the complainant and her husband. Subsequently, the bank did not follow up the matter and the complainant approached opp.party no.1 for pre-closure of the loan account and asked for concession in the rate of interest, for which the bank expressed its inability.
The complainant committed default, in payment of regular monthly instalments and as on 01.01.2010 there was balance of Rs.5,25,360/- and the same was paid by the complainant. After receiving the payment, the opposite party no.1 , which has no knowledge about the non-deposit of title deeds, had addressed a letter dt.01.01.2010, which is in general format of the branch, intimating about the repayment of entire loan amount and requested to release the title deeds. Subsequently, it was found that the complainant has not deposited title deeds. After receipt of the notice, the bank officials have called the complainant and her husband and explained them and requested them to withdraw the notice, but the complainant hastily approached the District Forum. The complainant has not deposited the title deeds as mentioned in the complaint. There is no necessity for the bank to issue notice every month, to the complainant. The complainant committed default, the bank charged penal interest, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Opp.parties never collected Rs.10,640/- in excess of the amount due as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party no.2 is not having title deeds in their custody. The opposite parties were not liable to pay any damages, much less Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant made false claims. Hence, the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. The opp.parties also filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.
Upon hearing the counsel for both parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, in part, directing the opposite parties to return the original title deeds within one month from the date of receipt of this order and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred the above appeal urging that the District Forum erroneously placed reliance on Ex.A11 dt.06.06.2006 in coming to the conclusion that the title deeds were deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties, even without examining the nature of the loan facility granted to the complainant, that is an agreement of sale Ex.B1 dt.09.05.2006 for purchase of flat, after executing security documents on 12.06.2006 and Ex.A2 agreement to mortgage dt.12.06.2006. Therefore, the District Forum ought to have seen that the deposit shall not arise until the registration document by the developer/owner after payment of the loan amount, to the land owner/developer and registration of sale deed by them on14.06.2006. That the District Forum erred in directing for return of the title deeds to the complainant, on the assumption that the title deeds were deposited by the complainant and the same were either misplaced or lost. Therefore, the order of the District Forum is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is the case of the complainant that she deposited all the title deeds eight in number, at the time of obtaining loan and inspite of clearing the loan, the opposite parties have not returned the said original documents.
On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant never deposited the said documents with them and on the assurance given by the complainant and her husband, they have sanctioned the loan and disbursed the same and after that they did not follow up the matter. Therefore, the title deeds were never deposited with them and they are not in the custody of the title deeds.
It is an admitted fact that housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant. The question for determination is whether the complainant deposited the title deeds with the opposite party no.2 . The complainant is relying on Ex.A8 and Ex.A11 to prove that she has deposited the documents mentioned in the complaint with the opp.parties.
Ex.A8 is the copy of the letter dt.1.1.2010 given by the opposite party no.1 to the effect that the entire loan was cleared and requested the opposite party no.2 to deliver the title deeds deposited at the time of creating the equitable mortgage. The opposite parties admitted sending of Ex.A8 letter to the opp.party no.2 on the complainant being cleared the loan, and the contents therein. However, the opposite parties 1 & 2 contend that opposite party no.2 which is the centralized agency, it scrutinizes and sanctions loan and opposite party no.1 is not aware whether the complainant deposited the title deeds or not. Therefore, in a usual course of routine matters, Ex.A8 was issued and the entire amount was paid by the complainant, infact, the complainant never deposited the original title deeds with them. Except oral assertion, the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence in proof of the above explanation given by the opposite parties for opposite party no.1 writing Ex.A8 letter to the opposite party no.2 for release of the documents. Ex.B2, the copy of agreement of mortgage dt.12.06.2006 specifically mentions that mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Nowhere in Ex.B2 it was stated that the complainant has not deposited her title deed for creation of equitable mortgage.
Ex.A11 is the copy of the letter dft. 06.06.2006 given by the counsel of the opposite parties to the effect that the opp.parties have sought the opinion of the standing counsel whether the loan can be sanctioned to the complainant on the basis of title deeds and documents produced by her. The counsel, in para 1 itself, mentions that the documents that were sent to him by the opp.parties for verification and his report and the documents, which were mentioned as Sl.Nos.1 to 8 on none other than the documents mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. As rightly observed by the District Forum, that when complainant has not deposited the title deeds with the opposite parties, how the opp.parties will send the title deeds for scrutiny and verification by their standing counsel. Ex.A11 letter is dated 06.06.2006, that is much prior to the sanction letter dt.12.06.2006.
It is the case of the complainant, that she deposited all the title deeds with the opposite parties and then only they have sanctioned the loan. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant and her husband promised to deposit the title deeds within 14 days and on their promise only, the loan was disbursed. At the end of page no.2 of the counter/written version filed by the opposite parties, they have categorically stated that generally the bank releases the loan amount only after deposit of the original title deeds, but in this case, the bank released the loan amount, even without receiving the original title deeds by bonafidely believing the representations of the complainant and her husband Sri.V.O.Rajveer, who is an advocate by profession. It is not known as to what made the opposite parties to disburse the loan amount to the complainant, giving special treatment to the complainant deviating from the general and routine procedure, permitting the complainant to deposit the title deeds within 14 days. Admittedly, the opposite parties did not pursue the matter. As seen from Ex.A11, only to know whether the documents deposited by the complainant are correct or not, the banks have sought the opinion of their standing counsel and the standing counsel, after verification of the documents, submitted by the complainant with the opposite parties had given his opinion stating that all the documents are perfect and valid and if the said document of title is deposited in the manner required by law, it will satisfy the requirements of creation of equitable mortgage. In view of Exs.A8 and A11, the opposite parties cannot be permitted now to say that the complainant has not deposited the title deeds with them. From the case of the opp.parties, one can come to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the view, that there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties and we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the District Forum. The appellants/opp.parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant towards costs of this appeal.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 25.6.2013